Immigration Watch International

Obama first took on jobs by wasting over a trillion dollars in his stimulus package, and then he tried to deal with health care by proposing another trillion-dollar boondoggle. The new jobs bill he outlined in the State of the Union speech was more of the same: spending money we don’t have on public sector jobs in infrastructure, education and energy.

Instead of putting future generations further into debt, we could immediately free up millions of jobs by tackling immigration reform – true immigration reform, not the imposter called amnesty. Barack Obama mentioned immigration only briefly at the end of his speech when he said, “We should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

Like with the economy and health care, Obama has identified a problem but then proposes a solution that makes the problem worse. While the statements in the speech seemed innocuous and vague, the White House’s website issued talking points that explained what the line meant: The president is pleased Congress is taking steps forward on immigration reform that includes effective border security measures with a path for legalization for those who are willing to pay taxes and abide by the law. Obama is referring to a bill by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) that will gut enforcement, reduce border security, grant a blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, and massively increase legal immigration. This will cost Americans literally millions of jobs!

In last week’s column, I discussed a number of real reforms we should make to fix our immigration system. The final step I advocated was a three-year “timeout,” a moratorium on legal immigration. In light of the growing debate on job creation, I’d like to elaborate on what exactly a moratorium is and why we need to enact one immediately.

Every month our government lets in 75,000 permanent foreign workers via “green cards” and 50,000 temporary workers through numerous guest worker programs. That’s 1.5 million new foreign workers each year. Then add all the illegal aliens flooding across our open borders. Every one of those new arrivals is competing with American citizens for jobs – and contrary to the propaganda of the open borders lobby, they are not taking only “jobs Americans won’t do.”

Last month, the Census Bureau data showed one out of six people in the American workforce is foreign born. That’s the highest figure since the 1920s and over three times as high as it was in 1965, when our immigration system was overhauled by the then-junior senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy.

When our economy was growing, these figures were easy to ignore, but with 25 million Americans out of work, it is insane to continue these policies. Yet, few members of Congress in either party are willing to discuss reducing legal immigration to safeguard American jobs.

While I applaud immigrants who arrive legally, who want to assimilate and become Americans, our immigration policy needs to put the interest of the American economy and American citizens first. And with so many Americans out of work and millions of legal immigrants already in the work force, we need a three-year timeout on legal immigration as well as secure borders to halt illegal immigration.

In addition to freeing up jobs for American workers, a three-year moratorium will free up resources to help government immigration agencies deal with existing case backlogs and fraud investigations. A timeout on immigration will also make it easier for the legal immigrants already here to assimilate. And unlike Obama’s jobs program, a moratorium will not cost a penny and will create new private sector jobs for Americans and legal immigrants already here.

It is true that a moratorium on immigration will not solve our unemployment problem, but this is a classic case where the old axiom ought to be heeded: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is – stop digging.

Labor in opposition called it a white elephant, the Australian of the Year has labelled it a factory for mental illness, while the federal opposition says it’s a visa factory. However it’s described, the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre is never far from the spotlight.

A group of Tamils staged a peaceful protest inside the compound this week, which included a short a hunger strike that has now ended. Refugee advocates say the Tamils are angry about a mobile phone ban and long processing times, inflamed by the fast-tracking of asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking who struck a deal with the federal government after refusing to disembark from the Australian customs boat in Indonesian waters.

Built by the former Liberal government at a cost of more than $400 million, the centre has operated only under the current federal Labor government. Tucked away on Christmas Island’s northwest point, the detention centre is holding about 1564 asylum seekers. The latest boatload arrived on the island for processing on Friday. Despite the monsoon season asylum seekers continue to arrive in Australian waters bound for Christmas Island, with one group intercepted last week just one nautical mile (less than 2km) to the north of the detention centre.

Last year Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced capacity of the centre and other facilities on the island would be doubled from 1200 to 2200, at a cost of $40 million, to cope with the expected influx of asylum seekers. A Department of Immigration and Citizenship spokesman said the current capacity is 1848.

Senator Steve Fielding and opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison visited the island last week to inspect the detention facilities, which also include alternate accommodation for children and women, along with traumatised asylum seekers. Senator Fielding likened the accommodation for most as ‘akin to a motel’. He said Australians did not need to be concerned about how detainees were being looked after other than those who are living in tents erected to provide further capacity at the centre. ‘It’s very good accommodation, I think people are well fed, they’re well looked after, I think the only concern is the tent city and quite frankly they are at capacity and bursting at the seams and that just can’t continue,’ he told AAP.

Senator Fielding said both he and Mr Morrison were kept away from the protesting Tamils who were sitting outside under a shaded area near the centre’s oval. ‘We were kept well away from there, in one way it would have been nice to go and chat to them about their concerns but they were very concerned about making the situation worse,’ he said. ‘They’re basically saying they are going to remain on a hunger strike until they’re treated as human beings. ‘The conditions here are quite good so I’m not so sure exactly what they are complaining about.’ Mr Morrison said some of the detainees had been living in tents for 28 days. [How sad!] The federal government had to realise it had a problem and the real issue was to halt the number of boats arriving, he said.

The hunger strike had been triggered by the fact asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking had been given a special deal to fast track their cases that others had not, Mr Morrison said. ‘I don’t think they have a claim frankly when it comes to their treatment, I think their treatment here is outstanding,’ he said.

Reports of interviews with detainees showed people smugglers were selling a good product to asylum seekers bound for Christmas Island, which was essentially a ‘visa factory’, Mr Morrison said. He said detainees reported people smugglers were saying the only country to come to was Australia. ‘They never said that about Australia when the coalition was in government.’

Boats will continue to arrive, both Mr Morrison and Senator Fielding say. And with the boats come the immigration workers, the police, customs staff, health workers and security guards needed to run the detention centre. The remote island, 2600km northwest of Perth, is closer to Indonesia than the Australian mainland.

The latest government data show that over one-fifth of incarcerated criminals in America are foreign-born. A large share of these individuals may have violated immigration laws and could be subject to deportation. Immigration status may be relevant to investigations of criminal activity, so officers in every police and sheriff’s department need a basic understanding of immigration issues and policies and how they intersect with public safety matters.

The Center for Immigration Studies and Law Enforcement and Public Safety TV (LEAPS.TV) announce the release of the first in a year-long series of webinars, entitled ‘Immigration Policy for State and Local Law Enforcement.’ The series is designed to provide useful information on immigration issues and assist state and local agencies in developing appropriate policies to deal with criminal aliens and crime problems associated with illegal immigration. The first program is an introduction to the issues and is presented by Jessica Vaughan, CIS Director of Policy Studies. Future programs will feature subject matter experts from a mix of federal and local law enforcement agencies.

The webinar is available here

Mr Morrison has been visiting the island’s detention centre with Independent Senator Steve Fielding to speak with detainees and inspect the facilities.

His description of the island as a ‘visa factory’ and Mr Fielding’s comment that the island’s facilities are too attractive have drawn the ire of Labor MP Michael Danby, who nicknamed the pair “Laurel and Hardy” and accused them of fear mongering.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans says he has been told 130 Sri Lankans are staging a peaceful protest, including a hunger strike. But Mr Morrison says the facilities are first class and the protest is a cry for attention. “I think Australians can rest easy about the treatment of asylum seekers on Christmas Island,” he said.

“I think this is more of a cry for attention rather at this stage rather than anything of any great seriousness, and frankly they have nothing to complain about in terms of the facilities or the services, or the treatment that they’re receiving on this island. “I think we have a lot to be proud of in the way that people are being looked after here. I thought the standard of facilities at least met that standard, if not better in some cases.”

Activist groups say more than 350 detainees are staging a peaceful protest and hunger strikes against the time it is taking to process their claims. Earlier, Senator Evans said the protest would do little to help the detainees’ cause. “I want to make it very clear to them and to the community … we’re not going to be responding to this,” he said. “What we are going to do is ensure proper process is followed – that is people have to have had their health, identity and security checks and then they have to have been successful in their application for protection.”

This is no surprise. Given that much of last year was squandered on a health-care debate that has yet to produce an agreement, and given that Americans are clamoring for the administration to focus on jobs and the economy, immigration has fallen far down the priority list, for both the president and Congress. “I don’t think there’s been a diminution in the desire to do it,” says Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network, which has also pressed for an overhaul. “But there’s a greater recognition that the pipeline got backed up in 2009.” The top two priorities now, he says, are a jobs bill and financial-services reform. “If those get done, and Washington is working better, then I think other things will be possible this year.” Even, perhaps, immigration reform, though he says it may well get pushed to 2011.

The pro-reform forces, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and advocacy organizations, are mostly striking a measured and realistic tone. They realize that Obama has his hands full, that he’s rightly focused on jobs, and that it’s perhaps time to regroup on the immigration front. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who introduced a reform proposal in the House in December and has often expressed impatience with the administration’s handling of the issue, had mostly supportive words for Obama in a blog posting this morning. Though he lamented the president’s cursory mention of immigration in last night’s speech, he argued that ultimately it was up to Congress to seize the reins. Lawmakers “cannot wait for the President to lay out our timeline for comprehensive reform,” he wrote.

For now, Hispanic voters appear to be cutting Obama some slack. “From the perspective of the Latino community, the most pressing issue is the economy and job creation,” says Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, just as it is for Americans generally. Even in good economic times, immigration usually ranks as only a midlevel concern for Hispanic voters. The problem, however, is if they perceive that the president has betrayed them on the issue. At this point, that’s not the prevailing sentiment. “We know that he’s committed, that he’s opened the door to make progress on the issue,” says Martinez. But there’s “definitely an expectation that there will be movement [on an immigration overhaul], and there will be disappointment if that doesn’t happen.” My guess is he’s safe not dealing with it this year. But if he waits beyond 2011, Hispanics’ patience may wear out.

Taxpayers will spend nearly $60 million on healthcare for 288 migrants granted special clearance last financial year to live in Australia, despite failing health exams. These included 59 cases of HIV infection, 10 of cancer and 26 of intellectual impairment. Most of the waivers were granted to the foreign partners of Australian citizens.

Now the federal government wants to widen the health loophole in a bid to lure skilled immigrants who otherwise would be turned away on the grounds of illness, mental health or chronically ill family members.

But NSW — the strongest magnet for new migrants — has so far refused to sign the change, which requires state and territory agreement because of the potential drain on their hospital systems. In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s treatment of disabled migrants, the Immigration Department warns that removing health restrictions could strain health services already in short supply, such as organ transplants or dialysis. “Additional migration, particularly if current health restrictions were to be removed, could lead to increased pressure on healthcare systems,” it says. “Any significant change to the current health requirement would need to be considered in the context of potential impacts on health and welfare expenditure . . . particularly in terms of prejudice to the access of . . . citizens and permanent residents to healthcare and community services.”

Departmental data reveals that 42 health waivers were granted to foreign workers on temporary skilled visas during 2008-09. The department plans to extend the waivers to workers seeking permanent residency, and those who have set up businesses in Australia.

Health bans were lifted last financial year for 138 temporary immigrants seeking to remain in Australia — at a total cost to taxpayers of $19.5m in health and community services. Another 150 immigrants who applied offshore were granted waivers, at an estimated cost of $38.2m. HIV was the most common health condition, involving 59 cases at a cost of $14m, with 26 cases of intellectual impairment at a cost of $1.2m, and 10 cases of cancer, at a cost of $751,500. The department knocked back applications from another 1586 would-be migrants who failed health tests — at an estimated saving to taxpayers of $70m.

Federal parliament’s migration committee began inquiring into Australia’s treatment of disabled migrants after Immigration Minister Chris Evans intervened in 2008 to grant permanent residency to a German doctor whose son had Down syndrome.

Fifty-one percent of 1,618 registered Florida voters surveyed by Quinnipiac (Conn.) University said they wanted immigration laws enforced compared to 43 percent opposed to them being waived in the wake of the deadly Haitian earthquake Jan. 12.

Voters were opposed, 50 percent to 46 percent, to a decision by the Obama Administration to grant temporary legal status for 18 months to Haitians living in the U.S. when the earthquake hit and divided on allowing more immigrants into the country. Quinnipiac said the survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

In the post-World War II years, the rallying call in this country was to populate or perish – a response to the fear of military invasion from a powerful northern neighbour. This gave us the Baby Boomer generation, which is now nearing retirement and creating imminent pressures of an aging population.

The greying of the nation has prompted Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to espouse a new call for a “big Australia”, propelled by a higher birth rate and increased immigration. It’s a short-term solution to a long-term problem. What will happen in another 50 years? Will another prime minister call for an even bigger population boom to replace the generation reaching retirement then?

The population debate has been hijacked until now by economic greed and rationalism. The argument has been that the higher the population growth, the greater consumption will be and therefore economic prosperity and profit – at least for the wealthy few in society. Little or no attention has been paid to the limited availability of natural resources, the dire effect on the environment and loss of quality of life as more people compete for living space in our cities.

It is good to see that questions are finally being raised about Australia’s sustainable population. This week enterpreneur-adventurer Dick Smith became the latest in a string of forward thinkers who criticised Government plans to encourage population growth, saying Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. He also urged slashing immigration and discouraging women from having more than two babies, thereby allowing population growth to be contained.

Just because people in many other countries have to live in cramped high-rises in concrete urban jungles does not make it a lifestyle model Australians should aspire to.

In 1798, the Rev Robert Thomas Malthus published his Principles of Population in which he stated: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”. He predicted that endless population growth would block progress towards a utopian society. As an Anglican minister, Malthus, believed that God had created an inexorable tendency to human population growth for a moral purpose, with the threat of poverty and starvation designed to teach the virtues of hard work and virtuous behaviour.

We carry a responsiblity to make the world a better place for the generations that will follow. Australia is well placed to embark on a journey to a more sustainable future. The future of the country may depend on it.

Excerpt: This Backgrounder proposes statutory language fixes to federal identity theft and aggravated felony language in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028 and 1028A to reverse the practical implications of the May 2009 Supreme Court ruling in Flores-Figueroa v. United States.1 Flores crippled prosecutors’ longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring that prosecutors now also prove that a defendant knew he was using a real person’s identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person. The statute is an important tool for immigration enforcement. Proving a defendant’s knowledge about his crime is always difficult, and impossible in some cases, even where there is substantial harm and clear victims. This is especially the situation with illegal aliens who buy identity information from third parties. The inevitable result of the Flores decision is to enable perpetrators an easy defense and to tie prosecutors’ hands. The defendant in the case was an illegal alien working at a steel plant in Illinois.

********

2. Failure to Uphold Immigration Laws Leads to the Death of a Deputy Sheriff

Excerpt: During the past several months, I have commented on the failure of law enforcement officials to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, thereby giving illegal alien criminals an advantage that they should not have. Law enforcement officials argue that they have to give illegal aliens a pass for violating immigration laws in order to gain their confidence and support. While this may work in some cases, it also leaves violent, criminal illegal aliens free to go about their business.

********

3. The Answer to the World’s Problems — Immigration to America

Excerpt: For the second time to three days, the Washington Post has an op-ed calling on us to help Haiti by reducing the number of Haitians living there. Elliott Abrams’ piece, which I critiqued here on Friday, was wrongheaded in calling for substantial increases in Haitian immigration but at least it didn’t reject American sovereignty. On the other hand, this most recent piece, by tranzi economist Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development, is remarkable as an example of forthright post-Americanism. For instance

********

4. ICE Speaks Up for State and Local Immigration Enforcement

Excerpt: A funny thing happened on the way to the coliseum, where open-borders advocates and other strident ethnic activists thought the lions would deal a final blow to state and local immigration enforcement. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official — from the Obama administration, no less — actually defended the program. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton praised the 287(g) program in comments reported by the Arizona Republic.

********

5. Help Haitians — in Haiti

Excerpt: Elliott Abrams has a piece in today’s Washington Post calling on the United States to substantially increase Haitian immigration, so as to reduce the population of Haiti and increase the amount of remittances sent there from abroad. It’s so wrong-headed I’m not sure where to start.

********

6. Illegal Use of Welfare Can Justify Fee Waivers for Haitian TPS Applicants

Excerpt: One of the ironies of the new Temporary Protected Status program for Haitians illegally in the country on the date of the earthquake is that they can use illegally obtained welfare benefits to support an application to waive the $470 application fee for the TPS program.

********

7. Making Sure H-1Bs Actually Work for Their ‘Employers’

Excerpt: A couple of news items have converged with research. Recently, I have been reading the legislative history of the H-1B program. It is interesting to see how some things have changed and other things keep repeating. The H-1B visa was created in the Immigration Act of 1990. From the House Judiciary Committee we have the findings that:

********

8. Use TPS Fees Paid by Haitian Illegals to Help Haiti

Excerpt: The Miami Herald tells us that something like 200,000 Haitians, now in the U.S., illegally, are going to be given temporary legal status in the U.S. through grants of Temporary Protected Status. The number is much larger than earlier estimates issued by the government, and might be an over statement.

********

9. Mixed Reports from the Immigration Reform Front

Excerpt: Under the pressure of constant questioning from the Spanish-language media, the White House continues to insist that it wants to move quickly on ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ even as congressional Democrats indicate that they have no desire to deal with the issue this year. ‘This is something we take very seriously,’ Obama aide Cecilia Munoz told Univision newsman Jorge Ramos on Sunday’s Al Punto program. ‘His commitment is there.’

********

10. Spreading the Inevitable Flood of Haitian Refugees Around the Region

Excerpt: It is highly likely that there will be a flood of Haitian refugees in the next few months, no matter how heroic the Administration‘s efforts are to meet the short- and long-term needs of the people in Haiti. It is time to make some hard-nosed suggestions about the distribution of those refugees. I heard on the news last night a reporter say that Haiti is ‘on America’s doorstep.’ Compared to Afghanistan, well, yes, but a look at the map would be helpful.

* The last Census Bureau data (2008) indicates there are 546,000 Haitian immigrants in the United States. That is up from 408,000 in 2000 and 218,000 in 1990.1

* Of the 546,000 foreign-born Haitians in the United States, 48 percent are naturalized U.S. citizens; this compares to 43 percent for the overall foreign-born population.2

* The top states of Haitian immigrant settlement are Florida (251,963; 46%), New York (135,836; 25%) New Jersey (43,316; 8%), Massachusetts (36,779; 7%), Georgia (13,287; 2%), and Maryland (11,266; 2%).3

* Our best estimate is that there are 75,000 to 125,000 illegal Haitian immigrants in the country. In 2000, the INS estimated there were 76,000 illegal Haitian immigrants.4

* When it extended Temporary Protected Status to Haitians, the Department of Homeland Security estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people could be eligible. While most are illegal immigrants, this estimate also includes those on temporary visas such as tourists, foreign students, and guest workers who will not have to go home.5

* Between 2000 and 2008, 183,188 Haitians were given green cards (permanent residence). These figures do not include those who entered on a long-term, temporary basis such as guest workers and foreign students nor does it include short term visitors like tourists. Of those given permanent residence, 135,913 (74 percent) were admitted under family-based immigration.6

* There are 310,000 U.S.-born Americans who have at least one parent born in Haiti.7

* Of Haitian immigrants (ages 25 to 65) 22 percent have not graduated from high school and 18 percent have a college degree. This compares to 9 percent and 30 percent, respectively, for native-born Americans.8

* The share of Haitian immigrants and their young children (under 18) living in poverty is 20 percent. For native-born Americans and their young children it is 11.6 percent.9

* The share of Haitian immigrants and their young children who lack health insurance is 29.5 percent. For native-born Americans and their children it is 12.6 percent.10

* Of households headed by Haitian immigrants 46 percent use at least one major welfare program. For households headed by native-born Americans it is 20 percent.11

* The share of Haitian immigrants who own their own home is 49 percent. For native-born Americans it is 69 percent.12

For more information on the subject, please visit our Haitian Immigration overview page.

End Notes

1 Figure for 1990 and 2000 come from the public use file of the 1990 and 2000 Census. See “Where Immigrants Live: An Examination of State Residency of the Foreign Born by Country of Origin in 1990 and 2000,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantsStateResidency. Figures for 2008 come from a Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the public use file of the American Community Survey.

2 Based on Center for Immigration Studies analysis of public use file of the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS).

3 Based on Center for Immigration Studies analysis of public use file of the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS).

4 For the INS estimates see Table 2 in “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000,” see here

5 The TPS announcement and the estimated number who may be eligible can be found here.

6 Office of Immigration Statistics annual year books 2000 to 2008. See here.

7 Based on Center for Immigration Studies analysis of a combined sample of March 2008 and 2009 Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is the primary source for statistics on the labor force, income, poverty, welfare use, and health insurance in the United States. The CPS is smaller than the ACS, but it includes a question on birth place of mother and father. By using a two-year sample of the CPS we are able to get a more robust estimate of those born to Haitian immigrants in the US.

8 Based on Center for Immigration Studies analysis of public use file of the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS).

9 Based on a Center for Immigration Studies analysis of a combined two year sample (2008-2009) of the public use files of the March Current Population Survey (CPS). See endnote 5 for more information about the CPS. Figures for immigrants and their children are for immigrants from Haiti and their US-born children under age 18 who have a father born in Haiti. Figures of natives exclude the US-born children of immigrant fathers. Poverty figures are based on the official federal threshold.

10 Based on a Center for Immigration Studies analayis of a combined two year sample (2008-2009) of the public use files of the March Current Population Survey (CPS). For more explanation about the CPS see Footnote 7. Those lacking insurance indicated that they did not have health insurance for the entire calendar year prior to the survey. Figures for immigrants and their children are for immigrants from Haiti and their US-born children under age 18 who have father born in Haiti. Figures of natives exclude the US-born children of immigrant fathers.

11 Based on a Center for Immigration Studies analysis of a combined two-year sample (2008-2009) of the March Current Population Survey (CPS). For more explanation about the CPS see endnote 5. For cash programs (TANF & SSI) the use rate for Haitian immigrant households was 7 percent, for food assistance (food stamps, WIC or free lunch) the use rate was 28 percent, for housing (public housing & rent subsidies) the use rate was 8 percent, for Medicaid the use rate was 31 percent. It is important to note that a large share of welfare programs used by immigrant households are received on the behalf of their US-born children (under 18). The comparison figures for households headed by native-born Americans is 5 percent for cash programs, 11 for food programs, 4 percent for housing programs and 15 percent for Medicaid.

12 Based on Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the 2008 public use file of the American Community Survey. The figures represent the share of households headed by Haitian immigrants who own their own home.